He's always been Slippin' Jimmy. He tried to do good and please Chuck and get his approval, but even as he tried to do good he was constantly conning people for a good reason. From the skateboarders to the whole storyline with the crazy couple and the stunt with the billboard. His strategy is always unorthodox even if he has good intentions.

And finally here he has a chance to really be taken seriously and shut Chuck up once and for all, and he bails. It's exactly why Chuck didn't want him there in the first place. So its not super surprising.

With Walt is different because he had shown no signs ever in his life of doing anything immoral or illegal. He was always doing things by the book. His change is much more dramatic.

The finale was good. Not incredible but set things up nicely for what's coming next.

Since we're comparing the Breaking Bad and Walking Dead writing staffs... I've heard Nerdist Writers Panels with both of them. The difference is crystal clear. The Walking Dead writing staff is combative by design. People pitch ideas and are supposed to defend them under fire. This is apparently a thing. Vince Gilligan has several times expressed his dislike for this model, and he wanted to have a deeply collaborative and amiable writing staff. Whenever you hear the Breaking Bad writers talking to each other, there's so much warmth and respect and excitement about what they're creating together. Then you listen to the Walking Dead staff, and there's this tension and resentment just under the surface of their jokey-combative relationship.

This is unlike anything else on TV. That's not necessarily an unqualified strength, though. The thing is, I can feel the writer's hand so clearly that I'm rarely fully immersed. The show could be too smart for its own good.

Which is not to say it doesn't still deliver a lot of emotion. Everything with Kim is the definition of bittersweet, and there's this ever-present sense of doom. Chuck is that rare kind of complex villain who you can't dismiss, because he's partially right.

There's so much going on in this show. Whatever it becomes, it will remain endlessly enjoyable to analyze. Check out this video from the AV Club to see what I mean:

The thing is, I can feel the writer's hand so clearly that I'm rarely fully immersed.

Huh. That's quite the opposite for me. In fact I was watching the latest episode thinking "As much as I know about Vince Gilligan and Breaking Bad, this show just seems like it has a life unto itself."I don't begrudge you feeling that way, though. I can totally feel PT Anderson's pen on the page watching "Magnolia" and his eye behind the camera on "Inherent Vice" yet it's absent in "Boogie Nights" and "The Master" for me. I know people who feel the EXACT opposite. In any case, it's hard to believe this show was originally going to be a half hour. I couldn't imagine it as anything less than the well-crafted hour it has become.

I mean, I still love the show. It's immensely fun and always true to itself. It's just that the phenomenon I described keeps this from being one of my favorite things. I'm grappling with it.

Breaking Bad had this issue for me, too, just a bit — this lack of mystery. The way you watch a scene and know its exact purpose.

Better Call Saul having less urgency and lower stakes than BB exacerbates that, I think. It forces you to be in the moment and live in every scene. Which is great, but then you can really feel how everything is so calculated. There's very little ambiguity. There's no chaos. It really does feel like a written world.

There are some exceptions. The unfolding of Chuck's character was the highlight of Season 1 for me — it was almost a Lynchian identity twist. And they did something similar with Howard. Those were both completely amazing. So why do I feel like that won't happen again?

There was a lot to love about this episode. Mike's performance for Tuco was a delight from beginning to end. Jimmy's meeting with the bosses revealed, in a very smart way, exactly how out of place he is.

But that scene with Chuck just did not work for me. It flopped. For such a smart show, they certainly don't always trust us to figure things out. The writers fell back on some of their worst habits — making subtext into text so thoroughly. Confirming with actual words, in cringe-inducing detail, the conclusions about this relationship that viewers had already reached, and simply telling us through the characters' mouths what was already apparent in the scene. This would happen occasionally in Breaking Bad, but let's be honest, it's happening more often in Better Call Saul.

I think it also did some damage to my memory of Chuck and Jimmy's epic confrontation near the end of last season. Why let them get all their feelings out like this? Why diffuse that tension now?

I know I'm probably holding the show to an absurdly high standard, but it's their own fault for being so good in the first place.

Yeah. Better Call Saul is turning out to be even more morally complex than Breaking Bad.

This episode was kind of a master class in pulling that off, wasn't it? I think I sympathized with every single character, from beginning to end. Even the second-year associate, when she saw Jimmy attempting a bribe. Even Chuck, when he said that Jimmy isn't a bad guy, he just can't help himself. Even Mike's daughter in law, who seems genuinely humble and grateful now (and less manipulative).

Howard may be the hardest person to sympathize with at the moment. But it's clear that Kim hurt him in a very serious way; he's acting out of emotion, not being evil.

The show was just renewed for Season 3, by the way. Apparently the ratings are decent.